Notices
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 201 to 268 of 268
Like Tree37Likes

Thread: Non-Physical

  1. #201  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,812
    Quote Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever View Post
    Can the fields itself be considered as something material? If not, then would it be right to assume that our physical universe originated from a nonmaterial field?
    I had pondered this but I was of an opinion that particle creation must be something either fields do or the field is just a form the particle takes. I'll ask this question now: does the field form the particle or the particle the field?

    Particle decay....when a particle decays, is there a field left behind or does the field change or possibly disappear for good?

    EDIT: I guess I should first ask whether an elementary particle can actually decay?
    Last edited by zinjanthropos; November 26th, 2013 at 09:41 PM.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #202  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    I'll ask this question now: does the field form the particle or the particle the field?
    The field is more fundamental - the particle is just an excitation ( like a ripple on a lake ) of that field.

    Particle decay....when a particle decays, is there a field left behind or does the field change or possibly disappear for good?
    If a particle decays, it ceases to be an excitation of the original field, and becomes excitations of other fields. Picture it as each fundamental particle being a manifestation of an underlying field that permeates the entire universe at all times; our reality is thus basically a "stack" of superimposed quantum fields. To pick out one example - all electrons in existence are excitations of the same underlying quantum field, which is why all electrons are exactly the same and have physically indistinguishable properties ( they all have the same rest mass, a half integer spin, and one unit of charge ). That latter bit ( all particles of the same kind being physically indistinguishable in terms of their properties ) comes as no surprise once one realises that they are all manifestations of the same field.

    EDIT: I guess I should first ask whether an elementary particle can actually decay?
    Yes, they can.
    babe likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #203  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,444
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    I'll ask this question now: does the field form the particle or the particle the field?
    The field is more fundamental - the particle is just an excitation ( like a ripple on a lake ) of that field.

    Particle decay....when a particle decays, is there a field left behind or does the field change or possibly disappear for good?
    If a particle decays, it ceases to be an excitation of the original field, and becomes excitations of other fields. Picture it as each fundamental particle being a manifestation of an underlying field that permeates the entire universe at all times; our reality is thus basically a "stack" of superimposed quantum fields. To pick out one example - all electrons in existence are excitations of the same underlying quantum field, which is why all electrons are exactly the same and have physically indistinguishable properties ( they all have the same rest mass, a half integer spin, and one unit of charge ). That latter bit ( all particles of the same kind being physically indistinguishable in terms of their properties ) comes as no surprise once one realises that they are all manifestations of the same field.

    EDIT: I guess I should first ask whether an elementary particle can actually decay?
    Yes, they can.
    You explain well but I get maybe 1/4 of what is said....sometimes I really feel DUMB!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #204  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    You explain well but I get maybe 1/4 of what is said....sometimes I really feel DUMB!!!
    Why would that make you feel dumb ? You are a 1/4 smarter than you were before - in my books, that's a success, no matter how small. Do you think I was any different when I first started learning physics ? Knowledge and understanding tend to come along in small steps, and in the occasional "Aha !" epiphany moment, which represents a bigger step. Keep the expectations realistic, and you're fine
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #205  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,444
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    You explain well but I get maybe 1/4 of what is said....sometimes I really feel DUMB!!!
    Why would that make you feel dumb ? You are a 1/4 smarter than you were before - in my books, that's a success, no matter how small. Do you think I was any different when I first started learning physics ? Knowledge and understanding tend to come along in small steps, and in the occasional "Aha !" epiphany moment, which represents a bigger step. Keep the expectations realistic, and you're fine
    I'm trying darling...but sometimes it is like WHOOSH!! Over my head....I even have to look up words! *chuckle* so I remain sotto voce ....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #206  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    I'm trying darling...but sometimes it is like WHOOSH!! Over my head....I even have to look up words! *chuckle* so I remain sotto voce ....
    I'd be the same when it comes to the performing arts...wouldn't even know my Othello from my Faust
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #207  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    4,436
    Othello is the black guy from Venice, Faust is the German guy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #208  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,444
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    I'm trying darling...but sometimes it is like WHOOSH!! Over my head....I even have to look up words! *chuckle* so I remain sotto voce ....
    I'd be the same when it comes to the performing arts...wouldn't even know my Othello from my Faust
    I know! People we have brought on stage to do what we do as an experiment are baffled....the language, the direction, and they multitudes of things going on that no one knows watching a show.......do they learn theater.....no,.....but they learn a little about performing and a greater appreciation to the ability to making something so difficult and complicated appear easy! *S*... Thanks! You are a doll face. A good imprint on the planet for sure!
    Markus Hanke likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #209  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,444
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Othello is the black guy from Venice, Faust is the German guy
    You are SUCH a DEMON!!!!! *glare*.....and actually he was Moorish in the Venetian Army, which would fit your description and man was Faust GERMAN!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #210  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    I do like my musicals though...Richard Cocciante's version of Notre-Dame de Paris ( with Helene Segara as Esmeralda ) brings goose bumps to my skin to this very day !
    babe likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #211  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Othello is the black guy from Venice, Faust is the German guy
    They might as well be Bunsen and Beaker, can tell them apart either
    babe likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #212  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,444
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    I do like my musicals though...Richard Cocciante's version of Notre-Dame de Paris ( with Helene Segara as Esmeralda ) brings goose bumps to my skin to this very day !
    I have not seen that!!! I have seen old movies of it though.....we know it as "The Hunchback of Notre Dame"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #213  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,444
    My favorite two musicals I have done? hmmmmmmmmm "Return to the Forbidden Planet" is definitely one....and playing "Miss Hannigan" in "ANNIE" was fun...neither were my best vocal musicals...as I am so much more mezzo soprano....but I pulled it off.....however.....the piece I am the most proud of...that would be, "Delores Dante", in "WORKING"....and I have the video...it is one of the most difficult physical songs in theatre......again not in my best vocal range...but dang....I pulled it off!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #214  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    I have not seen that!!! I have seen old movies of it though.....we know it as "The Hunchback of Notre Dame"
    Here is one of the songs from that very performance I was referring to :

    Notre Dame de Paris - Belle HD - YouTube
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #215  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,839
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    I'll ask this question now: does the field form the particle or the particle the field?
    The field is more fundamental - the particle is just an excitation ( like a ripple on a lake ) of that field.

    Particle decay....when a particle decays, is there a field left behind or does the field change or possibly disappear for good?
    If a particle decays, it ceases to be an excitation of the original field, and becomes excitations of other fields. Picture it as each fundamental particle being a manifestation of an underlying field that permeates the entire universe at all times; our reality is thus basically a "stack" of superimposed quantum fields. To pick out one example - all electrons in existence are excitations of the same underlying quantum field, which is why all electrons are exactly the same and have physically indistinguishable properties ( they all have the same rest mass, a half integer spin, and one unit of charge ). That latter bit ( all particles of the same kind being physically indistinguishable in terms of their properties ) comes as no surprise once one realises that they are all manifestations of the same field.

    EDIT: I guess I should first ask whether an elementary particle can actually decay?
    Yes, they can.
    Markus, if you say the field is more fundamental than the particle, which makes sense to me, yet it suggest the field creates the particle, although one cannot be present without the other. Is it possible that the field was created moments before the particle?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #216  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    Markus, if you say the field is more fundamental than the particle, which makes sense to me, yet it suggest the field creates the particle, although one cannot be present without the other. Is it possible that the field was created moments before the particle?
    The quantum field is always there, it doesn't get created or destroyed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #217  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,839
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    Markus, if you say the field is more fundamental than the particle, which makes sense to me, yet it suggest the field creates the particle, although one cannot be present without the other. Is it possible that the field was created moments before the particle?
    The quantum field is always there, it doesn't get created or destroyed.
    We seem to be back at the same question, should we be looking at the field first and then the particle? Everything seems to be pointing at both. We cannot study the particle without studying the field at the same time. The problem seems to highlight another problem that one aspect is measurable and the other is not. Is that correct?

    Just another question Markus. When the black-hole absorbs light or traps light, what happens to the light inside the black hole? I think it is gone because it has lost it's source. Is there something wrong with that thinking?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #218  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    We seem to be back at the same question, should we be looking at the field first and then the particle?
    Yes, as explained previously.

    We cannot study the particle without studying the field at the same time.
    Of course. That is what QFT is about.

    The problem seems to highlight another problem that one aspect is measurable and the other is not.
    Why is that a problem ? The quantum field itself has no other physical significance than to manifest as particles once excited - and that can be measured.

    When the black-hole absorbs light or traps light, what happens to the light inside the black hole?
    The correct answer to this question is that we don't know. We will need a full theory of quantum gravity to tell exactly what happens in the interior of a black hole, and we don't have such a theory yet. This is currently an area of very active research.

    I think it is gone because it has lost it's source.
    It's more complicated than that. The light itself might be gone, but information about its in-fall into the black hole is preserved in the form of entropy on the event horizon. This area of physics is called black hole thermodynamics, and is altogether quite complicated.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #219  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,839
    Markus, what would happen if two black hole approach each other? maybe I should be asking is that possible?
    If that is possible would the weaker gravity be sucked in by the stronger one?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #220  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    Markus, what would happen if two black hole approach each other? maybe I should be asking is that possible?
    Yes, it is possible - they would merge together and form one large black hole. See this animation :

    babe likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #221  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,839
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    Markus, what would happen if two black hole approach each other? maybe I should be asking is that possible?
    Yes, it is possible - they would merge together and form one large black hole. See this animation :

    Thanks Markus, very interesting.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #222  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,839
    here I am again Markus, I have loaded up my self with questions that I hope you can help me clear up.

    Observing the balloon model of the expanding universe, I see the universe expanding at an ever increasing rate with dark energy as the driver. When I look at the air in the balloon as the energy representing the drive, at some point the drive will have to stop unless the energy that is creating the energy (dark energy) does not stop. If the energy stops or reverse itself, would we not be heading back to the cause of the big bang?

    On the other side of dark energy, at what rate is this energy being generated? if there is another energy that is generating the dark energy, at what rate is the force driving the acceleration of the dark energy? what is the speed of the expansion if it can be measure? How could this speed be measured if the speed is not linear and each moment is faster than the next?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #223  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,812
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    If a particle decays, it ceases to be an excitation of the original field, and becomes excitations of other fields. Picture it as each fundamental particle being a manifestation of an underlying field that permeates the entire universe at all times; our reality is thus basically a "stack" of superimposed quantum fields. To pick out one example - all electrons in existence are excitations of the same underlying quantum field, which is why all electrons are exactly the same and have physically indistinguishable properties ( they all have the same rest mass, a half integer spin, and one unit of charge ). That latter bit ( all particles of the same kind being physically indistinguishable in terms of their properties ) comes as no surprise once one realises that they are all manifestations of the same field.
    Is there a limit to the number of fields or how far a particle can decay? When I think of decay I imagine something breaking apart. If the particle decays then does it actually lose a piece of its original self?
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #224  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,444
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    Markus, what would happen if two black hole approach each other? maybe I should be asking is that possible?
    Yes, it is possible - they would merge together and form one large black hole. See this animation :

    That was AWESOME!! THANKS!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #225  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    When I look at the air in the balloon as the energy representing the drive, at some point the drive will have to stop unless the energy that is creating the energy (dark energy) does not stop. If the energy stops or reverse itself, would we not be heading back to the cause of the big bang?
    It's a self-driving mechanism of sorts - dark energy accelerates the expansion. More space means more dark energy, driving the expansion more...and so on. Note though that dark energy is positive energy performing an equal amount of negative work on its surroundings, so the total net energy balance is exactly zero at all times.

    On the other side of dark energy, at what rate is this energy being generated?
    At the same rate as space is exanding ( which is an accelerating rate ), since dark energy is a property of space.

    what is the speed of the expansion if it can be measure?
    The rate of expansion is a function of distance - the currently accepted value is in and around 68km/s per Megaparsec of space.

    How could this speed be measured if the speed is not linear and each moment is faster than the next?
    Through the recession velocities of distant objects, which are related to their redshifts. That is an empirically measurable quantity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #226  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Is there a limit to the number of fields or how far a particle can decay?
    No, the only limit is the various conservation laws that need to be adhered to.

    When I think of decay I imagine something breaking apart.
    That is a classical notion which cannot be applied to quantum objects. Decays have nothing to do with breaking apart.

    If the particle decays then does it actually lose a piece of its original self?
    No, nothing at all gets lost, since decays work in accordance with the relevant conservation laws. It can be better thought of as a "redistribution" of properties.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #227  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,812
    Sounds like but I can't be sure, that an unexcited field precedes a manifested particle. I'm thinking that at the BB the fields were all present, so the BB is actually an event where the fields all come into existence so to speak. On the other hand the BB Singularity has been described as infinitely dense point of matter. Somewhere there had to be infinitely excited fields, no?

    This is where I, the layperson, gets confused. I start thinking a Black Hole has to be a collection of highly excited fields manifesting matter. If matter falls into the BH then isn't it an excited field going in? If the BH is a dense orb of matter then the fields that fall in will always remain excited, no? Perhaps I'm confusing matter with a excited field/particle manifestation. It just seems to me that matter is an excited field that stays excited. Now if this is the case then decay would mean that the matter in question becomes less excited or does the field simply lose strength, transferring it to another field that gains strength?
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #228  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Sounds like but I can't be sure, that an unexcited field precedes a manifested particle.
    Yes, that's pretty much the idea.

    I'm thinking that at the BB the fields were all present
    Remember that we don't have a consistent theory of what went on at the BB itself; but shortly after the BB, the above statement is true.

    I start thinking a Black Hole has to be a collection of highly excited fields manifesting matter.
    Again, we don't have a consistent model of what goes on in a black hole; quantum field theories break down there just as Einstein's GR does.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #229  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,812
    BB and Black holes are two puzzles that are going to require some pretty innovative thinking. Of course every new piece of information will slowly erode away at the seemingly impenetrable shell of secrecy surrounding them. Yet it seems impossible that we will know some day. In your opinion Markus, what will it take to unravel their mysteries?

    Personally I can see humanity eventually hitting an impassable roadblock at some point with scientific progress. I think that we may be able to simulate the event/structure using a computer by filling it with as much data as possible. Computers are taking giant technological leaps forward these days and it may be possible to some day recreate.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #230  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    In your opinion Markus, what will it take to unravel their mysteries?
    It will take a full and consistent model of quantum gravity. My opinion is that such a model will go hand-in-hand with a major paradigm shift concerning our understanding of the origin of space-time itself; I dare predict here that space-time will turn out to be an emergent phenomenon of a more fundamental set of degrees of freedom. But that's just my take on things.

    Personally I can see humanity eventually hitting an impassable roadblock at some point with scientific progress.
    I don't really see any reason to think that, to be honest.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #231  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,812
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post

    Personally I can see humanity eventually hitting an impassable roadblock at some point with scientific progress.
    I don't really see any reason to think that, to be honest.
    I hope you're right.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #232  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,812
    Field interaction creates the particle. Are there mechanisms that could suddenly reverse the process? I mean what would happen if one field suddenly weakened or disappeared altogether or do all fields retain their original strength forever?
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #233  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Field interaction creates the particle. Are there mechanisms that could suddenly reverse the process? I mean what would happen if one field suddenly weakened or disappeared altogether or do all fields retain their original strength forever?
    Quantum fields aren't thought to "disappear", so that case doesn't really apply.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #234  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,812
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Field interaction creates the particle. Are there mechanisms that could suddenly reverse the process? I mean what would happen if one field suddenly weakened or disappeared altogether or do all fields retain their original strength forever?
    Quantum fields aren't thought to "disappear", so that case doesn't really apply.
    So once a particle, always a particle, an inevitable and irreversible interaction when it takes place?
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #235  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    So once a particle, always a particle, an inevitable and irreversible interaction when it takes place?
    Yes, pretty much; that doesn't preclude further interactions and decays at some future time though.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #236  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,812
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    So once a particle, always a particle, an inevitable and irreversible interaction when it takes place?
    Yes, pretty much; that doesn't preclude further interactions and decays at some future time though.
    Do we know what fields produce elementary particles. I realize some do it on their own but is there some kind of recipe like mix this field with that one, stir up some excitement, and you get an elementary particle? Or do all fields have the capability of producing a particle, with some help of course?
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #237  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Do we know what fields produce elementary particles.
    Yes, this is described in the Standard Model of Particle Physics. There is quite a number of them.

    I realize some do it on their own but is there some kind of recipe like mix this field with that one, stir up some excitement, and you get an elementary particle?
    Each elementary particle is an excitation of a specific quantum field.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #238  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,812
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Do we know what fields produce elementary particles.
    Yes, this is described in the Standard Model of Particle Physics. There is quite a number of them.

    I realize some do it on their own but is there some kind of recipe like mix this field with that one, stir up some excitement, and you get an elementary particle?
    Each elementary particle is an excitation of a specific quantum field.
    Time for me to wax philosophic again..... It seems to me that if I were to design the universe then I would have to account for every particle produced. I would need to know beforehand exactly where and when for each particle. At some point I would need particle X to be part of a chunk of interstellar space debris and then later on have that same particle become part of a dinosaur. This would mean that the BB is totally organized and that there can be no randomness. Could anything be that intelligent?

    Anyway back to topic. I believe you told me that the quantum fields become excited because of their interactions with other fields. Yet these fields are superimposed upon each other and are everywhere. If the fields are everywhere then in order to induce a particle, it seems to me that some fields are more concentrated in some areas than others or it would be the proximity of one field to another that's more important. I don't think that is correct, so what exactly is causing all the excitement? Do other factors like temperature for instance influence the field excitations?
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #239  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    If the fields are everywhere then in order to induce a particle, it seems to me that some fields are more concentrated in some areas than others or it would be the proximity of one field to another that's more important.
    I'm afraid I don't really follow you. These fields aren't spatially separated, they are all superimposed at all points in space-time.

    Do other factors like temperature for instance influence the field excitations?
    Yes, energy densities do play in role in how fields interact.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #240  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,839
    Time for me to wax philosophic again..... It seems to me that if I were to design the universe then I would have to account for every particle produced. I would need to know beforehand exactly where and when for each particle. At some point I would need particle X to be part of a chunk of interstellar space debris and then later on have that same particle become part of a dinosaur. This would mean that the BB is totally organized and that there can be no randomness. Could anything be that intelligent?
    I really dig this question, why? because this is how I pose all of my questions to my self. How can I separate my self from the source and continue to receive energy to separate from the source? that makes no sense to me. My own intelligence is a part of the source. This is where your question gets interesting, 'what would I do, if I remodeled the universe? Would I need to know all of these things. The thing is though, how can we ask such a question from where we stand? The answer can only be a subjective one.

    These particles are interacting with and creating new fields and all the different interactions makes the universe pretty much unstable to me, so unstable that it creates stability. I know it sounds paradoxical, but the more you look the more you see.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #241  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,812
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    I really dig this question, why? because this is how I pose all of my questions to my self. How can I separate my self from the source and continue to receive energy to separate from the source? that makes no sense to me. My own intelligence is a part of the source. This is where your question gets interesting, 'what would I do, if I remodeled the universe? Would I need to know all of these things. The thing is though, how can we ask such a question from where we stand? The answer can only be a subjective one.

    These particles are interacting with and creating new fields and all the different interactions makes the universe pretty much unstable to me, so unstable that it creates stability. I know it sounds paradoxical, but the more you look the more you see.
    I rethought what I had said. I concluded that I would not need to know the where and when for each particle. I could create a universe using whatever amount of particles I manage to create. However if I bring randomness into the big picture then I play no other part, the universe is on its own. Still the very act of taking my particles and shaping a star or moon would require me to randomly select from my stockpile. If I took a measured quantity of this or that then I would not need to know the exact when and where for each particle. I would only know that when I'm finished that everything is as I want it to be before I put it in motion.

    Anyway, Markus has provided us with some great answers. He's pretty much told us in the simplest terms possible that elementary particles are the manifestations of excited fields. I'm sure it's more complicated than that and I appreciate him dumbing it down a bit so I (don't wish to include everyone in that regard) can try to grasp what's being said.

    OK. I guess the big question is, especially for those who believe in the non physical, is whether or not the fields are physical? Laypersons like myself look at a field and say there's really nothing physically there, just the effect of something that is there. Myself, I put an actual magnet before a magnetic field for instance. IOW's the particle precedes the field in my mind. How can I have a magnetic field without a magnet is something I would ask myself, not thinking that the particles forming the magnet are the result of an excited field. So I get confused thinking between needing a field to form a particle and needing a particle to form a field.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #242  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    I'm sure it's more complicated than that
    You bet Quantum field theory ( QFT ) is a very complicated thing altogether, and most definitely not my area of expertise. I can only convey the general ideas, and perhaps some of the broader mathematical formalisms, but anything else would have to be left for someone more knowledgeable in that particular field of study.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #243  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,839
    Markus, Now that you have been crowned guru of outer space, and hoping that the pressure of the title do not weigh you down and hinder your brain functions. I am back at your doorsteps.

    Markus, the more I think about it is the more I seem to get deeper in entanglement with my own question and perceptions. This question about the expanding universe driven by dark energy is bothering my mind.

    Here is the problem. We have the
    1. speed of sound
    2. The speed of light,
    3. The speed of dark energy. Faster than the speed of light.

    These are proven to be constants for the universe.
    If the speed of dark energy is faster and accelerating faster than the speed of light, would not at some point dark energy be expanding negatively at a rate of negative time? I am desperately hoping you understand what I am trying to say.

    If you consider a source of energy, (dark energy) expanding into a space not yet occupied by matter, at a rate faster than light, that can only be conceived as instantaneous expansion by our perceptions. If you consider the expansion to be accelerating, what is the rate of the acceleration? Is the rate faster that the speed of light?

    I think where I am having most of my problems are in understanding the logical aspect of an expanding energy source(dark energy) going in one direction that will end up expanding into infinity. Dark energy must be generated from some other energy force; it comes in and goes out.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #244  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,531
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    Here is the problem. We have the
    1. speed of sound
    2. The speed of light,
    3. The speed of dark energy. Faster than the speed of light.

    These are proven to be constants for the universe.
    The speed of sound is not a constant. It depends on a number of factors, such as the stiffness or density of the material it is passing through.

    The "speed of dark energy" is not a thing. (Where did you get the idea from?)

    So we are left with the speed of light as a constant.

    I'm not sure what the rest of your post is about. But to try and clarify a few things...

    The universe is expanding. What this means is that the distances between things are increasing (it doesn't mean that the universe is like bubble expanding in space).

    The rate at which the distance between things is increasing is not constant. It appears to be increasing over time (often described as accelerating expansion of the universe). The reason for this is not known so it is given the label "dark energy". This is because one way of modelling the acceleration is the pressure caused by an unknown ("dark") energy.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #245  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    4,436
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    The "speed of dark energy" is not a thing. (Where did you get the idea from?)
    Probably some mystic text from Ancient Aliens or the Dogons or something
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #246  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    Markus, Now that you have been crowned guru of outer space
    Ha ha, thanks
    See Strange's post for the answers.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #247  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,839
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    Markus, Now that you have been crowned guru of outer space
    Ha ha, thanks
    See Strange's post for the answers.
    I appreciate the response and effort from Strange, but I was hoping I could get the questions looked at individually, especially the question of time versus expansion. I was expecting you to ask me what is negative time, or what is negative energy or something of that sort. I am not sure my questions are posed correctly, as you know I am not versed in words as a real scientist, so my ability to phrase my questions in the right way is limited.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #248  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    I was hoping I could get the questions looked at individually, especially the question of time versus expansion.
    Can you try to reformulate that question again, and I shall look at it for you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #249  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,839
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    I was hoping I could get the questions looked at individually, especially the question of time versus expansion.
    Can you try to reformulate that question again, and I shall look at it for you.
    If the speed of dark matter expansion is moving faster than the speed of light, and at the same time accelerating with time, would we at some point be going backwards in time?

    If galaxies are moving away from each other, are they not moving into unoccupied space where matter is not yet present, or in empty space?

    Markus, I will leave it here for now and try to tackle the questions one by one. My probe is about what is the driving force for dark energy. I want to think that the black hole could be generating the dark energy, as you know I am like wild Bill Hickok shooting from the hip trying to hit something. You might be even laughing at me for my off the wall questions, but I like the mind games, do you?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #250  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    If the speed of dark matter expansion is moving faster than the speed of light, and at the same time accelerating with time, would we at some point be going backwards in time?
    This doesn't make any sense to me - what do you mean by "dark matter expansion" ?

    If galaxies are moving away from each other, are they not moving into unoccupied space where matter is not yet present, or in empty space?
    These galaxies aren't actually moving at all; rather, it is the space between them that expands, creating apparent movement if view from far away.

    My probe is about what is the driving force for dark energy.
    Dark energy is currently understood to be a ( geometric ) property of the vacuum itself.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #251  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,839
    If the speed of dark matter expansion is moving faster than the speed of light, and at the same time accelerating with time, would we at some point be going backwards in time?
    Let me rephrase the whole question.

    Dark energy is the reason for the expansion of the universe, expanding at a rate faster than light. The expansion is also Accelerating with time. My mind is asking me, if this expansion goes on and not stop, would time not be getting faster and faster? I seem to have lost track of time in this view of the expansion of the universe. As you mentioned the expansion is getting faster as time goes on. I guess we could take it for granted that the expansion was slower at one time in the history of the universe. The question is, can this expansion continue into infinite expansion? What happens to time? Can we call this time negative time?

    I hope I did a little better.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #252  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    Dark energy is the reason for the expansion of the universe, expanding at a rate faster than light.
    The currently observed expansion rate is on the order of 68 km/s per Megaparsec of space. That is far from superluminal.

    My mind is asking me, if this expansion goes on and not stop, would time not be getting faster and faster?
    Metric expansion affects only space, but not time; time doesn't expand.

    The question is, can this expansion continue into infinite expansion?
    That depends on the balance of several factors; currently we can't make this call, based on available data.

    What happens to time?
    Nothing.

    Can we call this time negative time?
    No.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #253  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,839
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    Dark energy is the reason for the expansion of the universe, expanding at a rate faster than light.
    The currently observed expansion rate is on the order of 68 km/s per Megaparsec of space. That is far from superluminal.

    My mind is asking me, if this expansion goes on and not stop, would time not be getting faster and faster?
    Metric expansion affects only space, but not time; time doesn't expand.

    The question is, can this expansion continue into infinite expansion?
    That depends on the balance of several factors; currently we can't make this call, based on available data.

    What happens to time?
    Nothing.

    Can we call this time negative time?
    No.
    Thanks Markus.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #254  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,812
    Reading Stargate's questions and this is just my gut feeling, I couldn't help but think that even though time and space are entwined, it's as if time preceded space. IOW without space, time still exists.

    I've read excerpts wherein cosmologists speak of the Chronoton or time particle. If this particle exists then does it mean that time itself is a field? To suggest a chronoton exists must mean that at least some of the scientific community think it is a possibility.....is this a genuine consensus amongst the learned or is the chronoton some type of sci-fi invention?
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #255  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    I've read excerpts wherein cosmologists speak of the Chronoton or time particle. If this particle exists then does it mean that time itself is a field? To suggest a chronoton exists must mean that at least some of the scientific community think it is a possibility.....is this a genuine consensus amongst the learned or is the chronoton some type of sci-fi invention?
    I have heard this mentioned before, but it is definitely not mainstream consensus. I would consider it a fringe idea / hypothesis, though I am not familiar with the details.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #256  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,812
    We talked about fields that interact with one another to form a particle. Some can do it themselves and some do not interact at all. There doesn't seem to be an field interaction that lies between a particle manifesting itself and nothing happening. Not sure how to word this and I'm too dumb to realize if this stuff occurs all the time but can fields produce a measured interaction with one another without even a virtual particle forming?
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #257  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Not sure how to word this and I'm too dumb to realize if this stuff occurs all the time but can fields produce a measured interaction with one another without even a virtual particle forming?
    The question has little meaning, because all we can detect are particles - the fields themselves cannot be measured.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #258  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,812
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Not sure how to word this and I'm too dumb to realize if this stuff occurs all the time but can fields produce a measured interaction with one another without even a virtual particle forming?
    The question has little meaning, because all we can detect are particles - the fields themselves cannot be measured.
    The fields are undetectable and cannot be measured? So we wouldn't know how much excitation a field would require to form a particle? Are the fields only a theory?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #259  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    The fields are undetectable and cannot be measured? So we wouldn't know how much excitation a field would require to form a particle? Are the fields only a theory?
    Quantum field theory - like any other theory in physics - is a model to describe reality. It is of course possible to calculate all observables from the theory, so yes, we know how these excitations are formed, simply from the underlying maths. These maths ( most of them anyway ) can be directly tested in particle accelerators; the entire Standard Model of Particle Physics is in effect one huge and unwieldy QFT.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #260  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,812
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    The fields are undetectable and cannot be measured? So we wouldn't know how much excitation a field would require to form a particle? Are the fields only a theory?
    Quantum field theory - like any other theory in physics - is a model to describe reality. It is of course possible to calculate all observables from the theory, so yes, we know how these excitations are formed, simply from the underlying maths. These maths ( most of them anyway ) can be directly tested in particle accelerators; the entire Standard Model of Particle Physics is in effect one huge and unwieldy QFT.
    Do these tests recreate the fields? If the Higgs particle was revealed in the particle accelerator test then it would stand to reason that a field was excited. Yet we cannot measure it. It must be telling us what is required to generate a field, no?
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #261  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,839
    Markus, I have been reading about the discovery of the Higgs Boson particle, and trying to understand what it is that they have actually found and how they are going to proceed to properly identify the particle. However, there seems to be some scientist that are saying there are some dangers that could affect the human race. As I have noticed they have pumped up the operating voltage they use from 9TV to 17TV, I think that is a lot of power. Is this the area where there could be danger for the human race? I am wondering if they are suspecting that there could be other particles released from the search for the Higgs Boson that could cause some damage. Do you know what the danger could be?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #262  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    Do you know what the danger could be?
    I can't really see any danger in this. There was much chit-chat in pop-sci magazines about microscopic black holes being created, but while that is possible in principle, their lifetimes would be extremely short. They would evaporate long before even reaching the walls of the accelerator tube, so no danger is present here.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #263  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,812
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    Do you know what the danger could be?
    I can't really see any danger in this. There was much chit-chat in pop-sci magazines about microscopic black holes being created, but while that is possible in principle, their lifetimes would be extremely short. They would evaporate long before even reaching the walls of the accelerator tube, so no danger is present here.
    I guess the obvious question for a layperson would be: where or into what do mini black holes evaporate?
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #264  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,444
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    Do you know what the danger could be?
    I can't really see any danger in this. There was much chit-chat in pop-sci magazines about microscopic black holes being created, but while that is possible in principle, their lifetimes would be extremely short. They would evaporate long before even reaching the walls of the accelerator tube, so no danger is present here.
    I guess the obvious question for a layperson would be: where or into what do mini black holes evaporate?
    *CHUCKLE*

    WELL IF you ask Captain Jack Sparrow........
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #265  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    I guess the obvious question for a layperson would be: where or into what do mini black holes evaporate?
    They would evaporate through Hawking radiation. However, since particle accelerators of the type required here are built underground and well shielded, this would not present any danger to anyone.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #266  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,812
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    I guess the obvious question for a layperson would be: where or into what do mini black holes evaporate?
    They would evaporate through Hawking radiation. However, since particle accelerators of the type required here are built underground and well shielded, this would not present any danger to anyone.
    But what does it become when fully evaporated?
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #267  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    But what does it become when fully evaporated?
    The radiation is all that remains.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #268  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,839
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    I guess the obvious question for a layperson would be: where or into what do mini black holes evaporate?
    They would evaporate through Hawking radiation. However, since particle accelerators of the type required here are built underground and well shielded, this would not present any danger to anyone.
    Markus, to how I was understanding the article, there seems to be an area where they are tapping into the dark with their eyes closed, as funny as that may sound. They mentioned that they have not reached to where they know what they have found.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Similar Threads

  1. Physical Changes - Would You Be Suspicious?
    By AHeinrich in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: May 19th, 2013, 04:38 PM
  2. Physical reality
    By merumario in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: January 26th, 2013, 10:00 PM
  3. Physical Appearences
    By Artemis in forum Behavior and Psychology
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: August 25th, 2009, 07:17 PM
  4. The self is not physical, but symbolic
    By coberst in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: September 13th, 2007, 04:24 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •